Sued and lost...

[Will Lee]

Wow, Just saw this in the news.

Good reason not to provide estimates now?

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/m...1_175237_11652

NORTH VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - A North Vancouver couple will be receiving $200,000 from a home inspector who gave them what is being called a "negligent'' and "woefully inadequate'' estimate on the repairs needed on a home they were looking to buy. The estimated $20,000 repair bill ended up being around $200,000!

Imre Toth has been ordered to pay up by a B.C. Supreme Court judge after his inspection of the $1 million house in September 2006. The judge found the buyers wouldn't have purchased the home had they been made aware of the extensive rotting beams and other structural problems. Another inspector found water weeping from a wooden beam, along with several cases of fungus growing.
Toth is a member of the Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors, a self-regulating association that licenses its members.

[Nick Gromicko]

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/m...1_175237_11652

NORTH VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - A North Vancouver couple will be receiving $200,000 from a home inspector who gave them what is being called a "negligent'' and "woefully inadequate'' estimate on the repairs needed on a home they were looking to buy. The estimated $20,000 repair bill ended up being around $200,000!

Imre Toth has been ordered to pay up by a B.C. Supreme Court judge after his inspection of the $1 million house in September 2006. The judge found the buyers wouldn't have purchased the home had they been made aware of the extensive rotting beams and other structural problems. Another inspector found water weeping from a wooden beam, along with several cases of fungus growing.
Toth is a member of the Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors, a self-regulating association that licenses its members.

Next time hire an InterNACHI inspector.

[Dale Duffy]

Originally Posted by Will Lee

Wow, Just saw this in the news.

Good reason not to provide estimates now?

I think it's a GOOD reason to NEVER provide an estimate.....

[Nick Gromicko]

Dale, you do a lot of commercial inspections. Do you offer estimates with your commercial property inspections?

[Gerry Pallotta]

No estimates provided on my part. I tell them many contractors are more than happy to provide a free estimate.

[Claude Lawrenson]

perhaps a mere slight of misinformation....
CAHPI-BC does not license home inspectors, any more than the NCP or ASTTBC does; they are licensed by application of qualified inspectors to BPCPA. Membership in CAHPI-BC does not equal an automatic granting of a license. The inspector must meet the criteria specified to get that license.

The inspector in question, was not licensed at the time of the inspection.

On the issue of estimates this is not the first or likely the last time that one was ordered by the court to pay for grossly underestimating costs of repairs. That in itself should provide a lesson for all, about the potential risk involved in exceeding the SOP.

If one reads further about the posts that go along with that - we should all learn there others that indicate why the inspection industry needs to clean up its act!

If anything, and on a side note this could be an interesting test case to see if this inspector will be disciplined and loose his license.

[Nick Gromicko]

Moral of the story: Inspectors should stay away from repair estimates and consumers should stay away from non-InterNACHI members.

[jumpleby]

Again i will say.......... well put Nick!!

[wsiegel]

The judge found the buyers wouldn't have purchased the home had they been made aware of the extensive rotting beams and other structural problems. Another inspector found water weeping from a wooden beam, along with several cases of fungus growing.

Looks more like a case of inspector negligence than cost estimating. The questions now becomes - how much did he miss? how much was not visible? how did he work his report?

[Joseph A. Ferry]

Stay within your SOP. The SOP is your friend.

[Vern Mitchinson]

To read the whole story and the facts go to
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=CAHPI&language=en&searchTitle=Br itish%20Columbia&path=/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2009/2009bcsc1515/2009bcsc1515.html

I have read the whole report. According to the evidence as I understand it Mr. Toth's testimony was contradictory, He met the CAHPI SOP but his inspection was incomplete, He lists RHI and B. Arch after his name, (B. Arch is the designation for architect in the UK, Au, and USA), He berated his client for showing up late for the inspection, He then rushed his client to sign his agreement, He rushed through his report presentation, He low balled his estimates for repairs. He used a tick and scratch type report, He ticked off that beam supports had subsided and that it was ongoing but failed to recommend consulting a structural engineer and a geotect engineer. He did not inspect one whole side of the building's support and foundation, He under estimated the repairs required for the deck, etc.
The inspection was before licencing came into effect.
Mr. Toth was certified RHI by CAHPI and still is certified by CAHPI. Because of that certification he got his licence.
Conclusion. Licencing did not screen out this individual and if ever an example for the effectiveness of how useful licencing is this is it.

[Charles R. N. Crooker]

Originally Posted by vmitchinson

To read the whole story and the facts go to
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=CAHPI&language=en&searchTitle=Br itish%20Columbia&path=/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2009/2009bcsc1515/2009bcsc1515.html

I have read the whole report. According to the evidence as I understand it Mr. Toth's testimony was contradictory, He met the CAHPI SOP but his inspection was incomplete, He lists RHI and B. Arch after his name, (B. Arch is the designation for architect in the UK, Au, and USA), He berated his client for showing up late for the inspection, He then rushed his client to sign his agreement, He rushed through his report presentation, He low balled his estimates for repairs. He used a tick and scratch type report, He ticked off that beam supports had subsided and that it was ongoing but failed to recommend consulting a structural engineer and a geotect engineer. He did not inspect one whole side of the building's support and foundation, He under estimated the repairs required for the deck, etc.
The inspection was before licencing came into effect.
Mr. Toth was certified RHI by CAHPI and still is certified by CAHPI. Because of that certification he got his licence.
Conclusion. Licencing did not screen out this individual and if ever an example for the effectiveness of how useful licencing is this is it.

BUMP

[Nick Gromicko]

To read the whole story and the facts go to
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=CAHPI&language=en&searchTitle=Br itish%20Columbia&path=/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2009/2009bcsc1515/2009bcsc1515.html

I have read the whole report. According to the evidence as I understand it Mr. Toth's testimony was contradictory, He met the CAHPI SOP but his inspection was incomplete, He lists RHI and B. Arch after his name, (B. Arch is the designation for architect in the UK, Au, and USA), He berated his client for showing up late for the inspection, He then rushed his client to sign his agreement, He rushed through his report presentation, He low balled his estimates for repairs. He used a tick and scratch type report, He ticked off that beam supports had subsided and that it was ongoing but failed to recommend consulting a structural engineer and a geotect engineer. He did not inspect one whole side of the building's support and foundation, He under estimated the repairs required for the deck, etc.
The inspection was before licencing came into effect.
Mr. Toth was certified RHI by CAHPI and still is certified by CAHPI. Because of that certification he got his licence.
Conclusion. Licencing did not screen out this individual and if ever an example for the effectiveness of how useful licencing is this is it.

BUMP

[David P. Valley]

By the Division of Professional Licensure in Massachusetts...

266 CMR 6.00: Standards of Practice

6.06: Prohibitions

Inspectors are prohibited (I repeat....prohibited) from:

(6) Determining the cost of repairs of any item noted in their Report and/or inspected by them and/or their firm.

[Douglas Cossar]

Check box type reporting might have contributed to the result as well.

Cheers